Chris Ketter's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Federal Election | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise on a point of order. I just note the clock has been reset.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019; Third Reading | Bills | Senate debates
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Broadband | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the constituents in the electorate of Dickson, one of my duty electorates. I was very pleased to accept a petition signed by 1,600 residents and have tabled...
I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the constituents in the electorate of Dickson, one of my duty electorates. I was very pleased to accept a petition signed by 1,600 residents and have tabled the Samford Valley Districts NBN petition in this place. I've spoken recently in this place about the difficulties experienced by the Samford Valley Districts residents with the NBN. I'm pleased to say that the residents are taking action. Local residents from the Samford Valley Districts area, postcode 4520, are represented by two advocacy groups: Samford & Districts Progress & Protection Association, and the Samford NBN Advocacy Group, led by local resident Mr Sean Ferguson. The suburbs affected at the 4520 postcode include Wights Mountain, Yugar, Samford Village, Samsonvale, Samford, Samford Valley, Mount Glorious, Kobble Creek, Mount Samson, Mount Nebo, Enoggera Reservoir, Draper, Jollys Lookout, Highvale, Camp Mountain, Armstrong Creek, Closeburn and Cedar Creek. The group has met with me; Michelle Rowland, the shadow minister for communications; and Ms Ali France, the Labor candidate for Dickson, to talk about the fact that it's affecting the residential and business access to the NBN. The residents of Dickson want action. In my capacity as duty senator for the Dickson electorate and committee member on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, the advocacy group has asked me to table their petition with 1,600 signatures and to speak in the Senate to represent their concerns—primarily, their opposition to the current allocation of fixed wireless and satellite across 65 per cent of the 4520 area. We've all heard the painful stories from residents and businesses that suffer appalling NBN services. The negative impact is devastating to many businesses, particularly small businesses. Problems faced by the residents and businesses in the Samford Valley district are different in the sense that the area has a higher-than-the-national-average percentage of small businesses and entrepreneurs, all requiring reliable broadband services, and the area constitutes the largest national rollout of NBN fixed wireless and satellite technologies within a metropolitan area. Originally scheduled for rollout in 2016, many 4520 suburbs are soon to receive a multitechnology mix, where 65 per cent of residents are destined to be allocated fixed wireless and satellite NBN due to oversubscription of the fixed wireless towers and the unique topographical issues in the area—mountains, valleys, rainforest, trees and vegetation, acreage and farms, urban and semirural mix—which impact on reliability, with residents experiencing frequent dropouts and outages. In addition, it's interesting to note that NBN Co categorises the Samford and district 4520 area as semirural, whereas telecommunications companies classify the area as metropolitan. Like many areas in Australia, the Samford Valley district is another casualty of the multitechnology mix, effectively creating a digital divide of inequality across the suburbs. Due to poor planning or a lack of understanding, a number of properties on Samford Road, the main road into Samford Village, have been allocated to NBN satellite—all less than one kilometre from the Samford Telstra exchange. The absurdity is that some ready-for-satellite-service properties are within 200 metres of the Samford exchange. Understandably concerned that their area will continue to be a digital backwater for decades to come if the current NBN plan for the 4520 district is allowed to continue unchanged or unchallenged, some consumers are reverting to their ADSL service. This is unfair and unequal. It's not just the Samford Valley that feels let down by their local member, Mr Dutton. My office regularly receives calls for help with the NBN. Just this week we received another two calls from upset Dickson residents—an elderly couple who were quoted hundreds of dollars to organise their own electrician to enable an NBN connection, and a single elderly lady who watched properties around her having NBN-enabling technology installed from late 2017 while repeatedly being told that it wouldn't occur on her property because she had Foxtel and Optus cables. Well, she doesn't have Foxtel or Optus cables. Now that the NBN switchover is imminent, she's been told she has to outlay hundreds of dollars. In both of these cases, the residents have been buck-passed from the telecommunication providers to NBN and back again in a classic case of NBN ping-pong. It's astonishing that, despite a $21.4 billion cost blowout and a rollout delay of four years, the Liberals can't meet their own local mandate in Queensland. Labor will continue to work with local communities like Samford. While Mr Dutton has let his community down, Labor has a strong voice in Ali France, the federal Labor candidate for Dickson. Together we call on the government to stop rushing this inferior technology across the Samford Valley district area. We call on the government to ensure that NBN Co delivers fair and equitable broadband services across this community—to the homes, the schools and the businesses—by providing residents with the necessary and appropriate technology to meet their needs and expectations now and into the future.
Federal Election | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
When will Mr Morrison demonstrate the leadership the nation needs and reject the divisive and dangerous ideologies of One Nation by ensuring all coalition candidates put One Nation and candidates...
When will Mr Morrison demonstrate the leadership the nation needs and reject the divisive and dangerous ideologies of One Nation by ensuring all coalition candidates put One Nation and candidates like them last?
In response to Mr Morrison's attempt to walk both sides of the street, former Prime Minister Turnbull said, 'Scott Morrison has obviously gone some way towards that today, but hopefully he will...
In response to Mr Morrison's attempt to walk both sides of the street, former Prime Minister Turnbull said, 'Scott Morrison has obviously gone some way towards that today, but hopefully he will go further.' Will Mr Morrison heed Mr Turnbull's advice to go further and put One Nation last?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to former Prime Minister Turnbull, who said, 'The call to show the most emphatic disapproval of One...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to former Prime Minister Turnbull, who said, 'The call to show the most emphatic disapproval of One Nation is absolutely justified, and they should be put last.' Is Mr Turnbull correct?
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018; Third Reading | Bills | Senate debates
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I call the minister.
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018; Third Reading | Bills | Senate debates
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018; Third Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018; Third Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to make a contribution on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017. I support initiatives to reduce the regulatory burden for our...
I rise to make a contribution on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017. I support initiatives to reduce the regulatory burden for our primary producers, providing they're taking into account the primary purpose of the APVMA, which, as we know, is to protect the health and safety of people, animals and the environment by ensuring chemical products are safe. So, yes, this is a very important regulator. It has very important functions. That's all the more reason why the government of the day should be respectful of its operations. I'll talk later in my contribution about the way in which this government has been utterly dismissive of the importance of this authority. Labor is supporting this bill, but I note that this legislation should have been implemented three years ago. The coalition government has dragged its feet on agriculture reform just like it's dragged its feet on banking reform, on payday lending, on consumer protections and in relation to superannuation. What this bill seeks to do is to make minor and technical amendments to the following acts: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments will 'realise operational efficiencies, reduce unnecessary regulation, clarify ambiguities and remove redundant provisions'. In enacting these changes, the bill reduces the regulatory burden on industry by simplifying reporting requirements for annual returns; reduces the administrative burden on the APVMA and industry by increasing the flexibility of the APVMA to manage errors in an application at the preliminary assessment stage; reduces the regulatory burden by enabling the APVMA to grant part of a variation application under section 27 of the schedule to the code act, which is the Agvet Code; enables a person to apply to vary the relevant particulars or conditions of a label approval that is suspended, to the extent that the variation relates to the grounds for suspension; establishes civil pecuniary penalties for contraventions of provisions relating to providing false or misleading information in the Agvet Code and the administration act; amends the notification requirements in section 8E of the Agvet Code so that the APVMA and the FSANZ will have the flexibility to agree on appropriate time frames for notifications; amends the definition of 'expiry date' in the Agvet Code to mean 'the date after which a chemical product must not be used'; and makes minor and technical amendments to the administration act and the Agvet Code, including the repeal of redundant provisions. As I said in my opening comments, the government has been too slow to implement the necessary reforms in this space—reforms which were expected from industry stakeholders following the introduction of these significant legislative reforms by the Labor government in 2013 to improve the efficiency of the APVMA. Despite the National Party selling themselves as the champions of farmers, it's often Labor who achieves the results. Labor's reforms saw promising signs of increased performance at the APVMA emerge in 2016. The performance against the statutory time frame for assessing pesticide applications reached 83 per cent in the 2016 September quarter. However, with the ongoing negative impact on the APVMA due to the forced relocation by the then Turnbull government, as currently supported by the Morrison government, these promising signs have been devastated. I noted Senator Ruston's comments earlier about the importance of the work of the APVMA not only for Australians but also in terms of our international reputation, and that just throws into stark relief the irresponsibility in relation to the relocation of the APVMA. The APVMA only achieved 30 per cent of its work within statutory time frames for crop protection in the 2017 March quarter, 24 per cent in the June quarter and 36 per cent in the September quarter. The recent performance figures have improved but are still not at the height of the time frames reached in the 2016 September quarter. We know that industry stakeholders are seeking to have this bill passed as soon as possible, but I note that this bill could have been put forward much earlier than 25 October 2017. It's interesting that Senator Ruston made the comment that these reforms are extremely urgent. You wouldn't know it by the time frames that they've been following in respect of these reforms. Further, since the election of the coalition government, it's failed to identify or deliver any legislative reform options that would result in any quantifiable ongoing efficiency dividend for the regulator. The former Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Joyce, has been all talk and no action on ensuring that further legislative operational efficacies are implemented. An example of the all talk and no action is the failed 2015 agriculture white paper, which indicated that the government would further streamline the approval of agricultural and veterinary chemicals by reducing industry and user costs by around $68 million to improve timely access to productivity-enhancing chemicals while still ensuring appropriate safeguards. Once again, we see that this is proof of a government that's big on media releases and discussion papers and incredibly slow to act. It brings to mind the continuous policy failures of the National Party in relation to the constituency which they claim to represent. We've seen failures on the part of the National Party in respect of climate policy, in respect of the rollout of the NBN, particularly for rural areas, when it comes to irrigation policy, when it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and northern Australia development, and when it comes to rural health. We know that people in rural Australia suffer some of the worst outcomes when it comes to health and yet we see this government not lifting a finger to assist. Another recent policy failure has been in respect of the creation of the Regional Investment Corporation, a $28 million organisation for which there is no policy rationale. In fact, it duplicates many of the functions of the state rural adjustment authorities. It's going to be located in Orange—which is a state seat that the National Party lost, coincidently. We know from evidence received at the last estimates that it's currently administering around four loans. This is a massive waste of taxpayer funding and another example of the failure of the National Party to properly represent people in rural Australia. Returning to this bill, it does consist of the necessary minor technical amendments to assist with streamlining the APVMA operations. Such amendments are to be expected following the significant legislative reforms introduced by Labor in 2013 to improve the efficiency of the APVMA. The amendments presented in the bill by the current government are three years later than what was required. Taking three years to implement necessary amendments is unacceptable, and this unnecessary delay highlights the lack of urgency and the focus of the then Deputy Prime Minister and his previous department, which had been distracted by the forced relocation to the member for New England's own electorate. However, criticism of the department is not warranted, because they have had to manage a difficult minister with very different priorities. Since deciding to relocate the regulator to Armidale, in his own electorate, the former agriculture minister and Deputy Prime Minister has failed to identify or deliver any legislative reform options that would result in any quantifiable, ongoing efficiency dividend for the regulator. Agricultural chemicals are a cost effective, efficient, essential and sustainable option for farmers to use to control pests, weeds and diseases and, as such, represent a core input for modern farming systems. A streamlined, effective regulator capable of delivering more timely risk assessments, approvals and registrations is essential. If we go back to the beginning, to when the then Deputy Prime Minister announced his forced relocation of the APVMA to his own electorate, he did so without any understanding of what the impact would be on the authority. Or, if he did understand it, it was with callous disregard for the impact. It also appears, on the face of it, that he seemed not to understand what the APVMA actually does. On 10 February, 2016, Minister Joyce actually said: Moving the APVMA would allow it to have a closer interaction with the people who actually use agricultural and veterinary chemicals, as well as build a centre of excellence in the research of agricultural issues. The APVMA does not actually deal directly with farmers and it does not test the products. The talk of the centre of excellence was just hollow words, and there is no actual plan as to what an agricultural centre of excellence would actually look like. Minister Joyce said that the proposal to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale would go through the process of an independent cost-benefit risk analysis, which would then be looked at further by the government. A cost-benefit was undertaken, and it gave a damning assessment of the relocation, stating that, firstly: The estimated economic cost of $23.19 million excludes any potential cost to industry arising from the risks to the agricultural sector, the chemical industry or Australia’s trading reputation. Whilst these risks are real, their impacts and consequences are based on a probability of an event occurring and as such in adopting the principle of conservatism they have been excluded. Secondly, it said: To effectively undertake the move of the APVMA and adopt relevant risk mitigation strategies, the cash cost to the government could be significantly higher than the estimated economic cost of $23.19 million. The report continued: The most significant risk identified through the analysis relates to the ability of the APVMA to relocate, or to recruit and replace, key APVMA executive, management and technical assessment staff within the first two years of relocation. Critically, the loss of technical assessment staff (regulatory scientists) has the potential to seriously disrupt the ability of the APVMA to successfully fulfill its purpose and achieve its objectives in the short and medium term. Further, a key concern for stakeholders in relation to the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale is the impact that the relocation may have on the approval of new chemicals for use. Stakeholders are concerned that delays to the approval of new chemicals will arise as a result of the loss of staff, the disruption to business and/or the impact to the APVMA’s current reform agenda. The analysis found that if poorly executed, the economic costs of moving the APVMA could therefore be considerably higher than identified in the cost benefit analysis. Based on conservative estimates of a one year delay in the approval of new products, the potential impact on the agriculture sector for crops alone could be between $64 million and $193 million per annum. The risks to the agvet chemical industry associated with moving the APVMA are also significant with a one year delay in the approval of new chemicals potentially impacting industry to the value of between $0.8 million and $2.7 million per annum in terms of lost revenues. Sadly, the cost benefit was totally ignored by the then Deputy Prime Minister, and now the risks identified are actual realities. But it wasn't only the cost benefit analysis that warned the then Deputy Prime Minister of his ill-considered pork barrel, the former CEO Kareena Arthy stressed the negative impact the relocation would have on the authority, in a letter to Minister Joyce on 31 July 2015, stating: 'Potential loss of regulatory scientists—the most significant challenge highlighted by the outcomes of the staff survey is that around three-quarters of regulatory scientists would probably not move if the APVMA is relocated. Only seven regulatory scientists have indicated a willingness to move. Even if all the scientists who have indicated that they may consider moving agree to move, there would be only 19 regulatory scientists with knowledge of how to assess registration applications or undertake the underlying scientific assessments.' The letter from Ms Arthy goes on to talk about the fact that regulatory scientists have highly specialises skills that are in short supply in Australia and even under the current situation, back in 2015, the APVMA found it hard to recruit appropriate regulatory scientists. Again, this is now a reality. The APVMA has recently indicated in its business model: The construction of the new business models for Armidale should be regarded as a high priority and delivered by a full-time team headed by a senior executive with a direct reporting line to the CEO. In order to insulate the team from the day-to-day and operational pressures of a busy regulator, the team should be separated from the ongoing business and include staff located in Armidale. Arrangements could also be made to facilitate the transfer of staff who wish to relocate to Armidale into this team so they have opportunities to contribute to the construction of the new model and the training of new staff. The maintenance of a sufficient internal scientific capability will require vigorous efforts to retain and recruit appropriately skilled regulatory scientists. This will require active management of staff relocations including incentives for staff to relocate and an accelerated recruitment program. The APVMA should also consider targeting staff from overseas pesticide and veterinary chemical regulators, either on permanent appointment or on secondment. Remote working may provide a means of retaining some more experienced staff. However, only some of the functions currently performed are suitable for remote working, and it is highly unlikely that this would be a long-term viable arrangement for the bulk of the staff involved in the function. So the APVMA is, of course, consumed with the issues associated with this forced relocation. I also note that there's been a recent report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee this month in relation to the independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. This committee report has expressed the concern 'about the manner in which the APVMA was relocated', 'its impact on the availability of staff expertise', 'the flow-on effects for farmers across Australia who require timely and certain access to pesticides and veterinary medicines', and the committee pointed to the fact that despite the best efforts of the authority they 'had no other option than to retain the satellite office in Canberra'. This is an indictment of the whole move. In conclusion, Labor will support this bill today. We will support it because, while those opposite drag their feet in standing up for the rural and regional communities they purport to represent, Labor will stand up. Labor is listening and delivering for regional and rural communities through Senate inquiries into the dairy industry, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund and insurance policy prices; through investment in renewable energy; through a review of free trade agreement protocols to expedite opportunities for our produce growers; and, in Queensland, through state Labor initiatives such as Building our Regions and wild dog cluster fencing. Labor will continue to listen to regional and rural communities. (Time expired) (Quorum formed)
Petrie Electorate | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise tonight to update the Senate on Labor's activities in my duty electorate of Petrie, with special emphasis on the issue of aged care. Aged care will be a key battleground in the next...
I rise tonight to update the Senate on Labor's activities in my duty electorate of Petrie, with special emphasis on the issue of aged care. Aged care will be a key battleground in the next federal election. We know that the coalition is scrambling to put money back into the aged-care sector after having cut $1.2 billion from it when Mr Morrison was Treasurer. We know that there are 127,000 Australians on the waiting list for home care. We know that there are dozens of reviews that have been ignored by the government and that Mr Morrison is now hiding behind the royal commission. In contrast, Labor continues to listen to the aged-care community. We're committed to improving our aged-care system, and we can stand proud on our record, having delivered the $3.7 billion Living Longer Living Better reforms when we were last in government. So Labor is out talking to the community. I give particular respect to Corinne Mulholland, who is Labor's candidate in the seat of Petrie. She has taken it upon herself to listen to members of the aged-care community. Together we've been going to a number of aged-care facilities over the last number of months. We went to the OPEL North Lakes facility—thanks to operations manager, Andrew, there for hosting us. We went to Seasons Aged Care Mango Hill—thanks to Kelly, Rosemary and the team there for organising the activity, which included a lovely morning tea. We were pleased to give a donation to the Foodbank fundraising drive on the day. We went also to Lodges on George. There was a very informative tour of the facility, and I look forward to visiting that facility again in the future to tour their newest wing. It's always very good to meet with residents, family and friends during these visits and to answer their questions about the parliamentary process and the Senate. We have some very lively discussions during the course of our episodes there. I look forward to visiting many other aged-care facilities and retirement facilities across my duty electorates in coming months. I'm really looking forward to hosting the shadow assistant minister for ageing and my friend, Senator Helen Polley, to meet with our candidate, Corinne Mulholland, and local seniors in the Petrie electorate next month. There are other campaign activities which we're involved with in the Petrie electorate. It's important to note that the campaign office for Petrie was launched on 27 January. So many supporters from the community and branch members came along to witness that event. Many House of Representatives and Senate colleagues also attended the launch of the campaign office. We had doorknocking in Fitzgibbon with a community barbecue on Sunday and Stirling Hinchliffe, one of the local state members, was in attendance. Coming up, we have the Griffin twilight community barbecue this Sunday afternoon at Peppercorn Street Park in Griffin. It is important to note that shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers, will be joining Corinne Mulholland and me for a banking forum on 23 February at the Bracken Ridge Tavern. I look forward to members of the community coming along there to hear from the shadow minister about the royal commission and the ramifications of it. Our fantastic candidate Corinne Mulholland is out doorknocking every day in the Petrie electorate, talking to locals about school funding. She is talking about the fact that Labor will deliver $23.3 million more for Petrie schools than the Liberals over the next three years. In the area of health, Corinne has announced that we will restore the Liberals' cuts to health funding and deliver new MRI licences for Redcliff Hospital and the Prince Charles Hospital at Chermside. On infrastructure, we're talking about the fact that it was Labor that delivered the Moreton Bay rail line. We'll build on that by delivering the Cross River Rail and delivering the Linkfield Road overpass at Bald Hills and by expanding the Mango Hill train station park and rides. It is clear that while Liberals play catch-up, copying Labor's commitments in Petrie, I'm proud to be supporting Corinne Mulholland, one of the hardest workers I know.
Banking and Financial Services | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
I rise today to speak in relation to this matter of public importance and the vitally important issue of consumer protection. It's quite clear that the Morrison Liberal government has failed to...
I rise today to speak in relation to this matter of public importance and the vitally important issue of consumer protection. It's quite clear that the Morrison Liberal government has failed to act on delivering better protections for consumers on a whole range of issues, not least of which the issue we're talking about: the reform of the financial sector. I am going to come back to that issue, but I want to outline some of the history leading up to this. I want to make the point firstly that when it comes to stepping up and addressing issues that are of concern to Australian families the coalition has either been missing in action or has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. I'm talking about some of the big issues in Australian history, going to some of the fundamental protections that Australian families enjoy—things like universal health care. Universal health care was opposed by the coalition government at the time, in the 1970s with Medibank and later with Medicare. When it comes to the retirement savings of Australians and the formation of the occupational superannuation system, again, this was something that the coalition opposed vehemently. When we come to reform of the financial sector and the appalling scandals that have bedevilled Australians, not only in the last few years but over the previous 10 years or so, we see once again the government choosing to stick its head in the sand, looking after its big business mates and its banking mates, and eventually having to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. We know the precursor to the more recent scandals—some of the scandals that took place under the previous Labor government. We saw things like the collapse of Storm Financial, Trio Capital and Westpoint. All of these things were looked at by the previous Labor government. There was a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry in 2011-12. The reforms that came out of that included financial advice providers being legally required to act in the best interests of their clients and eliminating kickbacks to financial advisers. But these things were fought by the coalition. They voted against Labor's future of financial advice legislation in the House, they voted against FOFA in the Senate and they tried to undermine the functioning of the FOFA reforms when they came to government. But, thanks to Labor taking up the fight on the finance front, FOFA was able to continue, and we went on to see some further work being done by ASIC down the track. For example, in 2016 they found that customers were paying fees for financial advice that was never provided. There were more than 300,000 customers affected by this scandal. In the face of all these scandals at the time, not only was the government dissembling and trying to fight against Labor's sensible reforms—I remember at the time the comments from the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, and Senator Sinodinos opposing some of these changes—but then we saw further scandals erupting. It wasn't until after those scandals that Labor started to call for the royal commission. That was in April 2016. We called for that royal commission in light of all the mounting evidence that was there. We saw the pain that was inflicted on ordinary Australians by banks which had a total culture of greed, being driven by the profit motive and return to shareholders at all costs. That was what was driving the system. In the face of that, Labor decided that there was a need for a royal commission. But once again the coalition was there to block Labor's sensible proposals. Over the 601 days or so that Labor was calling for a royal commission and the coalition was holding out, we had the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Turnbull, adamant that there was not going to be a royal commission. He said that it was just going to be a report and nothing would come out of that. He talked about the royal commission being a waste of money and said that the only thing a royal commission can do is ask questions and that it would be a political exercise that wouldn't do anything to resolve people's needs and concerns. He talked about the fact that the royal commission would be a forum for the legal profession and would go on for years—this is what Mr Turnbull said—and would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and not tell us anything new. How wrong Mr Turnbull was, as it turns out and as many of us were aware. Mr Turnbull also said that the royal commission would be a waste of time. He said it was a populist campaign. He said that it was just a slogan and nothing of substance. He said it was a political exercise, a cynical exploitation. He talked about it being crass populism. We know that the royal commission has handed down a very substantial report. There is a lot of work to be done, but I think we all are in debt to the work that Commissioner Hayne has done in this area. He has shone a light, over the 12 months of his commission, on some egregious conduct, something which I think many of us wouldn't have expected would have come out. Many of us thought that the situation was bad, but we didn't know just how bad it really was. So this opposition to the royal commission, I think, has been a low point for the coalition. But the opposition to the royal commission is not the only way in which this government has let down Australian consumers. I can make reference to some of the work the Senate Economics References Committee has done in its inquiries in a range of areas: looking at the issue of non-conforming building products and the very slow rate of response by the government to a whole range of issues that are coming out there, particularly asbestos coming into Australia continuously, and the government's failure to protect Australians in their homes by taking the step of supporting Labor's principled position of proposing a ban on the introduction of flammable cladding into Australia. The issue of foreign bribery is an area where the government has had an extremely slow response. On the issue of general insurance protections, we had a report in this area, Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare, finding that there were issues with competition in the general insurance market. Of course, I've already talked about the future of financial advice and the scrutiny of financial advice as well, which has been an area where the government has been completely missing in action. When it comes to the protection of consumers in a financial sense, I also want to make reference to the superannuation area, where we've also seen the government missing in action when it comes to superannuation guarantee nonpayments, which affect the most vulnerable in society. The rates of nonpayment of superannuation are in the billions of dollars. This has occurred under this government's watch, and collection and enforcement action by the ATO has been very, very disappointing. The best response that this government came up with was an amnesty, and, of course, as part of that, companies got a tax benefit from the underpayment of superannuation. It's come up at the Productivity Commission review, and the royal commission has dealt with this as well. This government shies away from debate on these issues, dragging its feet on reform over and over again. So many times super bills have been listed on the Notice Paper, and yet we never get to debate them. There are a number of other areas where this government has been missing in action on consumer protection—for example, payday lending. I give a shout-out to Mr Dick, who has dealt with this particular issue, and, on dodgy rural lending practices and local bank closures, a shout-out to Zac Beers, our candidate in the seat of Flynn. It is having effects on local businesses in Dickson, and our candidate in Dickson, Ali France, is dealing with this issue very clearly. It's time for a Labor government to step in and address this particular issue.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Senator Patrick, on a point of order?
Queensland: Bushfires | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise this evening with a sombre tone to express my sympathies to residents affected by the 120 bushfires that have been burning, some for over a week, across Central Queensland. I express my...
I rise this evening with a sombre tone to express my sympathies to residents affected by the 120 bushfires that have been burning, some for over a week, across Central Queensland. I express my condolences to the family of the young man who tragically lost his life over the weekend. My sympathies also go out to those who had to be airlifted to safety. These fires have spread far and wide over Queensland—fires that have threatened almost 20,000 people and around 8,000 homes. They've destroyed more than 527,000 hectares of land. I rise to thank the heroes who are fighting these blazes and to lend my support to the communities, the friends, the families and, in some cases, the total strangers who are helping affected residents in their time of need. These bushfire warnings were first issued on the 25 November—on a Sunday—for the Baffle Creek and Deepwater National Park area. Sadly, they were the first of many. By that afternoon, Deepwater residents were being urged to evacuate as hot, dry conditions fuelled the burning bushfires. A community meeting was called for Monday night in Agnes Water, where attendees received briefings from council and emergency services personnel on the state of the fires. Local disaster plans were put into effect as evacuation zones widened to include the Baffle Creek, Rules Beach and Oyster Creek areas. As our firefighters fatigued, reinforcements began arriving from other states, most notably, New South Wales. I particularly want to mention the Gracemere evacuation, where 8,000 people were evacuated using a fire stimulation system designed in Victoria after Black Saturday. The Premier of Queensland declared that it was a miracle that no lives were lost. Sadly, as one fire continued and the Gracemere residents were able to return home, 29 November saw fires threaten residents in Captain Creek and Winfield. Schools across parts of Central Queensland remained closed due to extreme heat and danger from the bushfires. We saw that more reinforcements arrived on the 30th from New South Wales and the ACT. The Premier visited the Miriam Vale evacuation centre. Before thanking firefighters and volunteers and rallying the troops to dig deep and keep on fighting, the Premier announced a bushfire appeal with $125,000 from the state government to kickstart recovery efforts. On Saturday 1 December, while many Australians were fortunate to enjoy the first warm day of summer, the bushfire update was 21 active fires in the Gladstone area, including fires at Deepwater and Eurimbula and other areas. There was a disaster declaration in place for the Gladstone disaster district, and fire bans in place for 37 local government areas in Central Queensland regions. Despite all of this, the Queensland spirit remains strong, and, together, we'll keep fighting. I want to make some time for some very big thank yous. Firstly to our emergency services personnel—our firies, SES and volunteers—thank you for your dedication. Thanks to other essential services workers for keeping our health services open and making sure our kids were safe in schools and to those working in grocery and other supply stores that communities need open to keep functioning. To our elected representatives—the Premier and Deputy Premier, Mayor Matt Burnett and his wonderful team at the Gladstone Regional Council, Mayor Strelow in Rockhampton, state members and councillors, and Zac Beers, the federal Labor candidate for Flynn, who's done a remarkable job keeping his community informed through regular Facebook posts—and to the other jurisdictions—New South Wales, Victoria, ACT, South Australia and Tasmania—thank you for your help in Queensland's time of need. In my conversation with Mr John Oliver of the United Firefighters Union, he stressed the point that given that we've got more protracted and intense fires these days, with the seasons now being more unpredictable, we probably need to look at resources being dealt with on an Australia wide basis rather than on a state-by-state basis. Thanks also go to the businesses that opened the doors and hearts to affected residents—Airbnb and GIVIT are two examples—the Red Cross for helping to monitor the movements of people, the charities taking donations for the bushfire appeals, the parents and families of children who were not able to go to the school due to the bushfires. I want to say in advance, thank you to the extensive clean-up crews that will be deployed across Central Queensland. While the immediate threat to safety may have passed, in most areas the damage is done and recovery is only just beginning. People have lost their homes. Farmers have lost their crops. The trauma of having to leave behind pets and possessions will haunt victims for some time to come, maybe forever. These fires have been described as unprecedented and catastrophic, more intense and longer lasting. But Queenslanders are made of strong stuff. We are resilient. In tough times we come together. We did after the 2010-11 Queensland floods that devastated our state. We do so in times of severe drought. I want to conclude by encouraging those who want to donate to visit www— (Time expired)
Dementia; Presentation | Notices | Senate debates
At the request of Senator Polley, I give notice of her intention to move a motion tomorrow in relation to dementia.
Economics References Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I present the report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered...
I present the report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report completes the long-running Senate Economics References Committee inquiry and follows three interim reports into nonconforming building products since the inquiry was referred in June 2015. This inquiry has run over two parliaments, during which time the committee received 164 submissions and several supplementary submissions. I want to thank all the stakeholders who contributed evidence to this inquiry through written submissions and through the 10 public hearings, spanning Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Sydney and Adelaide. The committee has been across the country grappling with issues troubling the construction industry and consumers. I also want to thank the secretariat and all the staff who have contributed to this report. Thank you for your diligence and your sustained efforts over the past few years. The final report today builds on our learnings from the cladding and asbestos interim reports and incorporates a broader evidence base in setting out a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenge of nonconforming and noncompliant building products. It also supports the compliance concerns raised in the Shergold-Weir Building Ministers' Forum report, Building Confidence: Improving the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across Australia, and it draws attention to the progress being made in dealing with nonconforming products in some jurisdictions. Specifically, the committee was encouraged by the proactive work undertaken by the Queensland government in its new legislation designed to strengthen the chain of responsibility for the importation and distribution of building materials. As such, recommendation 6 of this report suggests that other jurisdictions move to implement similar legislation, to ensure responsibility and accountability are spread more evenly across supply chains. By and large, many of the 13 recommendations of this final report echo those recommendations put forward in the interim reports. The committee is cognisant that the Building Ministers' Forum is already moving on some of these issues, as highlighted by the Shergold and Weir report. Nevertheless, the committee would encourage both the government and the Building Ministers' Forum to increase the level of momentum in implementing these recommendations and, moreover, those recommendations that have been raised previously. These include expediting mandatory third-party certification for high-risk products, including a national register of noncompliant products if feasible, and the introduction of a national licensing scheme. A simple change that the committee has put forward previously and again in this report is a recommendation we strongly believe would assist stakeholders—to consider making all Australian standards freely available. Where feasible, all forms of legal requirements should be freely available so that stakeholders can inform themselves adequately of their obligations under the relevant law. In conclusion, the issue of nonconforming and noncompliant building products is a very sobering one. It strikes at the very core of community issues such as public safety. It is literally a matter of life and death. Everyday Australians place their trust in the product, supply and construction industries to professionally provide a built environment that we can enjoy safely together. However, this inquiry has shown that too many times Australians have been let down. Asbestos continues to come into this country. There are new concerns about the amount of lead in our drinking water systems. There's flammable cladding on buildings across the country, and the blame game is only getting louder. It's time that the Liberal-National government steps up to the plate and tackles these problems head-on or calls an election and lets Australians decide who they trust to take us forward. The federal government can and must play a key role here. We must work with energy and diligence with the state and territory governments to set nationally consistent standards and the bar must be high. The federal government can help coordinate information systems to help detect importation of risky products and where they are installed. Licensing can be fixed and it is Labor who has a plan. To date, I have been disappointed by the attitude of this government on these matters of life and death. It doesn't help when there is a revolving door of ministers. I do hope that, in the remaining months of this parliament, following this report, we see some real progress for the building industry, but, unfortunately, I am not holding my breath, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Workplace Relations | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise tonight to express my support for the recently formed online retail and delivery workers alliance. The Friday after Thanksgiving is called Black Friday in the United States. As many...
I rise tonight to express my support for the recently formed online retail and delivery workers alliance. The Friday after Thanksgiving is called Black Friday in the United States. As many listeners would be aware, Black Friday is associated with discount retail sales both in stores and online. This is a phenomenon that in recent years has begun to spread to Australia. Some of the online retailers that push the Black Friday sales have also spread to Australia, most notably Amazon. Whilst new and innovative ways of working are always welcome here, what will never be welcome here is old-fashioned worker exploitation dressed up in shiny new economy clothing. I want to put briefly on the record my concerns about the culture of Amazon. Beginning its rise in America, Amazon now operates online through Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, China and India, and, since late last year, Australia. With an annual turnover in excess of $600 billion, it takes around five per cent of all retail sales in its native USA. Their motto, 'your margin is my opportunity', I'm sure is chilling to the ears of Australian retailers. What we heard through an Australian Financial Review article in 2016 is that this company wants to destroy the retail environment in Australia. So it's probably unsurprising that this year Black Friday across the world was not just about markdowns; it was marked by protests. Amazon has particularly been in the spotlight over poor working conditions, with workers across Europe and the US last Friday holding strikes and demonstrations. We've heard the horror stories from the UK's GMB union—ambulances being called out 600 times to 14 Amazon warehouses over three years, and a pregnant woman forced to stand for 10 hours a day. In the US, Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill which would tax employers like Amazon when their workers need government assistance such as food stamps and medical help. These protests come as unions from across the world recently formed the Amazon Alliance, with a commitment to work together to organise workers in Amazon. Last week, 67 union leaders from 17 countries committed to organising to change the way Amazon treats its workers. Amazon globally has a reputation for its union-busting activity, doing everything it can to avoid having workers in its company collectively working together to improve their lot. Amazon is welcome in Australia, but poor working conditions and union-busting activities are not. We'd ask that, in Australia, Amazon works with workers and their unions to have a successful business with fair conditions and secure jobs. But, unfortunately, the early signs here in Australia are worrying. In Australia the SDA, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association—the union for retail workers, online retail workers and warehouse workers, and my union—have been organising workers in Amazon's fulfilment centres. The SDA has had some significant success in organising workers, despite lunch room visits by union officials and their conversations with employees being monitored by management representatives, who often remain prominently in the lunch room for the whole time the union officials are there. But workers are starting to band together. They're coming together despite being pitted against one another through employment arrangements where online retail workers are employed through a labour hire agency, Adecco, rather than being directly employed by Amazon. We know that labour hire employment is insecure employment and often carries poorer pay and work conditions than direct, permanent employment. Labor always works closely with the unions to achieve better worker outcomes and has a policy to stamp out dodgy labour hire. It's our 'same job, same pay' policy. I'm pleased to hear that workers at the Amazon fulfilment centre are joining the union, withstanding undue pressure from the labour hire agency who made it clear that they didn't want any caps or lanyards with union logos on their premises. Workers are banding together, even after the first worker to join the union in the Amazon fulfilment centre, Raj, was sacked. The SDA has filed proceedings in the Fair Work Commission where it will be alleged that the employee was sacked for being in the union and having the hide to ask for more hours of work. The application before the Fair Work Commission is a general protections application involving dismissal. Raj has worked in warehouses for 20 years. He's a hard worker and a good worker. He and his wife, who works in retail, have built a life together and raised two sons together on a modest income in south-west Sydney. They've worked hard and put both sons through university. One son has gone on to become a doctor and the other a solicitor. Raj doesn't understand why he was sacked. He just wants to go back to work at Amazon and keep working hard, keep building a life and be a member of his union. Amazon needs to respect the workers in their fulfilment centres in Australia. They should respect their workers' rights to join a union. The overseas Amazon approach of union-busting is not welcome here. To strengthen the ability to organise online retail workers and delivery drivers, two of Australia's largest unions, the SDA and the Transport Workers' Union, have set up the Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance, an alliance aimed at bringing fair standards to the growing online industry. The move to change the rules and build the Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance comes as retail unions globally in Union Network International, including the SDA, have formed the Global Amazon Alliance. Also, the global unions for retail workers and for delivery workers, UNI and the International Transport Workers' Federation, have agreed to work closely together to organise Amazon, and the campaign to change the rules in Australia to allow workers to bargain through the supply chain gains momentum. The SDA believe that the Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance will bring together all workers in the online retail businesses supply chain, no matter how they are hired, to improve their working life. Already, over 2,000 workers in online retail in New South Wales alone have joined the SDA, the online retail workers union. Combine this with delivery drivers, and the alliance will take the cooperation of the SDA and the TWU in this area to a new level as part of the global union movement's campaign to provide security for workers in the online retail industry. Through this alliance, the SDA and TWU will support each other to reach out to workers within the Amazon retail and transport supply chain in Australia to make sure they know about their rights as workers and how to exercise them. The SDA has seen some shocking examples of workers in online retailers overseas being subjected to appalling working conditions. We cannot afford to let that happen in Australia. That's why the SDA and TWU are taking the unprecedented step of joining together to maximise union capacity to protect workers in the online retail industry. The TWU know that fair working conditions and safe workplaces are inextricably linked. Nowhere is this more acute than when it comes to transport in the retail supply chain, which sadly has high rates of deaths and injuries. I echo the call of the International Trade Union Confederation for Amazon to work with the Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance to ensure respect for workers and the community in Australia. General Secretary of the ITUC, Sharan Burrow, has supported the new alliance and recently said that the ITUC stands in solidarity with the SDA and TWU Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance in Australia and undertakes to support them in their endeavours to bring respect and fairness to Amazon workplaces. Fair-minded Australian retailers who rightly call for a level playing field with overseas online retailers on GST should also support any moves to ensure a level playing field in the way workers are treated by overseas online retailers who set up shop in Australia. This initiative to organise the supply chain will help level that playing field. Amazon is welcome in Australia if they accept that, here, workers are entitled to secure work, workers are entitled to fair treatment at work and workers are absolutely entitled to join their union. I want to encourage any Amazon workers who might be listening to or watching this speech to please consider joining a union. You can find out more information about the SDA online at sda.org.au and information about the TWU at twu.com.au. Lower prices are welcome only if they come through better ways of working and not through ripping off workers through lower pay and inferior conditions. Our unions are here to help and to make sure that this doesn't happen in Australia. Like the International Trade Union Confederation, we too stand in solidarity with the SDA and TWU Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance in Australia. I look forward to fighting alongside them with my Labor colleagues as they change the rules. I put on record here our unwavering support for their endeavours to bring respect and fairness to Amazon workplaces, starting right here in Australia.
Banking and Financial Services | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
This Prime Minister supported cuts to penalty rates, cut billions from schools and hospitals, voted against a banking royal commission 26 times, spent years trying to give the big banks a $17...
This Prime Minister supported cuts to penalty rates, cut billions from schools and hospitals, voted against a banking royal commission 26 times, spent years trying to give the big banks a $17 billion tax handout and last night voted against tougher jail sentences for corporate criminals. Why does the Prime Minister only ever stick up for the big banks and the top end of town?